Friday Summary, December 9, 2011

As Rich announced, we are shaking up the Friday Summary a bit. We will still talk about what we are up to. And we’ll share some of our personal – possibly security related – stories in the Summary. But we will focus on fewer stories with more analysis of interesting news items. Honestly, we’ll likely sneak in security news as well – it just depends on whether we see interesting stuff. Story of the week: DNSCrypt The big news this week is the ‘preview’ release of DNSCrypt from the OpenDNS group. As its name implies, DNSCrypt is a tool to encrypt Domain Name Service lookups to avoid evesdropping and deter Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks and tampering. Note that this is not DNSSEC, which was designed to enable users to detect tampering, and to authenticate DNS DNS answers. DNSSEC was not designed to encrypt DNS requests, which leaving requests unprotected from monitoring by ISPs and other parties; DNSCrypt fills this gap by encrypting requests and responses. I understand from the press release that this is currently a Mac OS X only package, so Windows and Linux users will have to wait. The installer is dead simple and the configurations settings are conveniently placed into the ‘Other’ section of System Preferences. And I can tell you this is one of the few End User Licensing Agreements I have ever read because, in a very Securosis-like style, there is no lawyer BS included. Took about a minute to download and another to install, and no restarts were required. I ran OpenDNS with DNSCrypt enabled, both over SSL on port 443 and without, and did not notice any performance difference. The packets appear to be encrypted as advertised – but they could be using a ROT13 cipher for all I know, given the minute I spent looking at the stream. I have not, and probably will not, review the source code – I assume there are better qualified people with more free time on their hands (i.e., those not filling the Nexus with great new content) who will. And I look forward to hearing what the community thinks about the implementation, as I think this will be a highly sought-after addition for those interested in security and privacy. The key takeaway here is that DNS requests should be safe from spying and MitM, provided someone cannot impersonate the DNS service. There is a small but real chance of this. For average users this is a very real advance in security and privacy! If you’re an IT manager you should check it out and see how well it performs for you. There may be issues – it is an early release product after all – but this dead-simple tool enhances security. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Mike’s Dark Reading post on Work and Play in Security. Adrian’s DR post on DAM. Rich quoted on Carrier IQ. Don’t tell Rich, but somebody thinks he’s an ‘influencer’. Securosis Posts Incite 12/6/11: Stinky. Friday Summary: Big Changes and Carrier IQ. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: Best Job Description Ever. This is how security folks should think about their jobs. Kudos to Quicken Loans for making their philosophy on security very clear, before applicants start the hiring process. It doesn’t hurt that their ideas are right on the money. (h/t Alex Hutton) Adrian Lane: Ask Slashdot: To Hack or Not To Hack. How many times have I said that in the ‘landgrab’ for mobile payments, security is left on the roadside, thumb in the air? You don’t have to guess too hard who this is! Project Quant Posts DB Quant: Index. NSO Quant: Index of Posts. NSO Quant: Health Metrics–Device Health. NSO Quant: Manage Metrics–Monitor Issues/Tune IDS/IPS. NSO Quant: Manage Metrics–Deploy and Audit/Validate. Research Reports and Presentations Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? Fact-Based Network Security: Metrics and the Pursuit of Prioritization. Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance. Security Benchmarking: Going Beyond Metrics. Blog Comment of the Week Remember, for every comment selected, Securosis makes a $25 donation to Hackers for Charity. This week’s best comment goes to Sripathi Krishnan, in response to last week’s Friday Summary. Rich, I have been a lurker on your blog for a long time now. I am a developer by profession, and security is a small but important part of what I do. Consequently, I do not spend much time on twitter or other ‘new media’ to stay up to date on this field. Friday Summary and the Incite give me a great perspective and insight on this field. ‘Read these two columns, and you will not miss anything significant’ has been my attitude. I would definitely miss the random list of articles. Please don’t exclude that. I know you have been complaining that people don’t leave comments. I am guilty of that. Hopefully, this comment of mine can influence you to not change the Friday summary too much. Thanks for the great work! And thank you for the great feedback! Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.